TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
No bio...
User ID: 616
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
Is the whole point of Effective Altruism to be a place for nerds to meet women?
Based on many of the frothing defendants of polyamory on the EA forum - seems like that is a major driver. Check out this comment where a relatively connected EA directly says:
As a poly EA, I'm more likely to bother to show up for things if I think I might get laid. It increases engagement and community cohesion. A group that is a good place to meet interesting opposite gender people is going to have an intrinsic advantage in pulling in casually interested people over one where that is strictly banned.
This dude got a grant for tens of thousands of dollars to write a fantasy book for EA. Go figure.
I have been involved in EA for a while outside of the Bay Area / UK sections, and damn I had no idea the rot went this deep. It's wild to see these poly folks mask off.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
Merry Christmas mottizens. Just want to say I’m grateful for all y’all hooligans. They said we couldn’t do it but here we are, survived another move, better than ever.
I hope you all get to spend some quality time with your families this holiday, and for a few minutes are able to let go of your frustrations and worries, and bask in Christmassy happiness.
To those without families nearby, I hope you have friends and loved ones. If you’re all alone reply to this post and I’ll talk to you. I know this is just a forum where we debate the culture war, but I’ve come to see it as a little online home. Good tidings for Christmas and a happy new year.
I just read a short article in an email newsletter that threw out this statistic with regards to automation in the food industry:
Between March and July 2022, an average of 760,000 people quit jobs in accommodation and food service
The article goes on to argue the point that due to all of the ‘quiet quitting’ and generally unsatisfied workers after the pandemic or over the last couple of years, automation will not be as big of a deal as we thought. I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a number of times recently where news outlets will talk about how all of the people worried about economic disruption from robotics and Artificial Intelligence don’t realize that it’ll actually be great because people hate working anyway.
I used to believe these claims when I was a disillusion young adult who hated working, but overtime I’ve gotten more and more skeptical. Many people I know take serious pride and work, and in fact for a lot of people their work is the most important thing in their life. I’m talking people who don’t even really need the money, or who claim that even if they had enough money to retire they would continue working just as much as they do now.
Is this recent trend of less engagement with work robust enough to offset the rise in automation of jobs? Is this just a cope from those who know their jobs will disappear soon? (Ie email newsletter writers)
Personally I’m surprised that artificial intelligence hasn’t gotten more flack than it has so far. I expected the lights to come out in full force and at least get some sort of ban on image generation (I know Getty or some other site has done this) but so far it seems that artificial intelligence is generally unopposed.
Any major salient examples of automation technology or artificial intelligence being banned to protect jobs?
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
6mo ago
We’re starting to see the contagion of mimetic violence that Girard predicted. Except our myths are so fragmented that it’s difficult for people to even agree on a narrative - the violence for its own sake is becoming naked, stripped of its justifications.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
6mo ago
I couldn’t tell you why that worldview exists; I think it’s a side effect of turning African American cultural complaints into mental masturbation, but it really is what it looks like.
Ultimately you can see it as a rejection of the idea of competence and hierarchy. All hierarchies and power differentials are inherently unjust according to a far left view, because they involve one being dominating another. Competence is simply a way to justify the hierarchical subjugation.
Recently Scott Alexander and a few others have been talking more about the idea of a social contagion, one which spreads real physical problems.
As I’ve argued in previous posts, this social contagion likely causes a number of what we see as purely physical injuries. Many feel that their body is injured. They deal with diagnoses from the medical community such as:
-
Chronic pain
-
Fibromyalgia
-
TMJ
-
Joint Hypermobility
Some doctors, like John Sarno, have even argued that far more injuries are based on psychological harm, rather than physical, such as:
-
Hives
-
Eczema
-
IBS
-
Gluten sensitivity/Celiacs
-
Herniated Discs
The list goes on. These are extraordinary claims, which Sarno backs up with impressive statistics in his book.. Unfortunately I can’t find his paper online, would be curious to take a look if anyone has a link. What Sarno calls the issue, and what other doctors or medical writers such as have supported him in, is a disorder called Tension Myositis Syndrome (TMS.)
The basic mechanism he posits is that our mind uses defense mechanisms to prevent us from thinking certain thoughts. We distract ourselves with drugs, alcohol, fast food, and many other addictions. He thinks that in the modern world, due to our views on physical injury, some people deal with their mind creating physical pain to distract them from emotional issues. This distraction comes out in certain nerves being deoxygenated, which he claims to have proven.
Much of this stress comes from trauma due to unresolved emotional issues, which is pretty standard accepted literature in psychology nowadays. Sarno specifically calls out “anxiety, anger, and feelings of inferiority” as the big culprits, citing that modern life causes many of us to have a lot of anger boiling under the surface. Constraints from work, relationships, illness, loss of loved ones, and in extreme cases childhood neglect or abuse.
To use a more rationalist lens, you could say the most stressor would be status anxiety. Many on the motte have argued that status anxiety is an incredibly common and hidden force that generates massive emotional problems, since the Western world is so hypercompetitive, and it’s difficult to measure up in any walk of life, let alone most. When you don’t feel you're at the top in your work life, social life, or family structure, people get frustrated.
What makes this problem worse is that due to the way modern society operates, we can’t express anger frequently depending on our situation. For those in the PMC, or the business world more generally, it’s considered almost unthinkable to yell at a boss or a client. The whole microaggression concept exacerbates the issue.
Some believe this is a recent phenomena due to stresses of modern life, but I’d argue that the connection between mind and body is far more complicated and older. Writers throughout history would cite feelings of pride which make your chest well, or having your hands tremble with rage. Our minds and bodies are inextricably linked, so it stands to reason that if we have rampant neuroses in our society, some of it would express itself physically.
I’m sure many of those reading this who are more physically active may have an instinctual response of “duh, of course the mind and body are one, it’s the most obvious thing ever.” I’d argue that the inferential distance around this issue opens a vast gulf which is difficult to imagine. If you have not experienced chronic pain, I don’t think it’s something one can confidently model with any real accuracy.
To some degree, patterns of behavior also must matter. A common response to an injury is to exercise, and for most generalized chronic pain issues, this seems to work. The issue arises when someone creates a trapped prior. Basically the idea that they have some condition is so deeply ingrained that the typical fixes don’t work. Many sufferers of chronic pain even admit they think it’s psychosomatic, but still struggle to deal with it. Ultimately Sarno’s method seems to work for them over time. Point is, our modern medical fixation on mechanical causology for injury seems, if not totally wrong, at least to be missing a big piece of the puzzle.
This idea may already swim in the water all around us. After all, we have plenty of colloquialisms such as “trust your gut” or “follow your heart” that suggest a connection. However, the common idea that injuries are almost entirely physical persists.
If true, this hypothesis could be one the discovery of which would shake our society to its roots. Long-lasting physical injuries being caused by emotional pain would alter our entire approach to medicine, let alone overall health or the pursuit of virtue.
It’s important to note that depending on your values, you may prefer the current state of events. If subjecting the emotionally damaged in Western society (most of us) to self-caused physical pain is worth preventing large amounts of anger and other negative emotions from boiling over, that is not necessarily an irrational choice. I’d certainly prefer dealing with one of these issues than living through a revolution or large war.
That being said, it’s a choice we must make without blinders. To ignore the issue entirely is to prevent us from solving it.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
Great post. I’m convinced there’s a solid link between liberal neuroticism, social contagion of said neuroticism, and many chronic mental health/pain issues.
Scott Alexander seems to be edging towards this conclusion recently, with this post about how transgender folks are more likely to have hyper mobility or EDS. I’ve actually been diagnosed with this condition and I’m convinced there’s a massive mental/social contagion aspect based on a decade of personal experience.
He also more directly confronts this in his review of *the Geography of Madness where he dives into the social contagion of things like penis stealing witches making entire communities of adults freak out and believe their genitals are being mutilated.
Clearly there is a strong cultural / mythopoetic element to most of our cultural neuroses and mental health issues. Unfortunately the dominant frame around these topics is that people are just born with their brains a certain way, and we should accommodate or pity them accordingly. In reality, the tried and true tactics of shaming and forcing people to become more resilient would be far more effective.
Psychiatry in general has clearly failed our generation, and is actively producing a host of messed up people that are incapable of dealing with even daily life. I for one am beyond disgusted with the psychological establishment, and think we need to burn it to the ground and start over.
That being said, I’m open to other suggestions.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
To counterbalance my frothy rant earlier this week about wokeism in the novel Ancillary Justice, I thought I would do a quick write up on another SF/F novel - namely The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison. This is another novel in the speculative fiction genre that has won accolades, is pretty 'woke' in its plot and worldbuilding, and is written by a pretty left leaning woman as far as I can tell.
However, I found it exquisite! To explain a bit without spoiling the plot entirely, it revolves around a half-goblin half-elf man who has been abused and out of favor his whole life, but suddenly becomes emperor of the refined, wealthy, and judgmental empire of elves who his late father ruled. It is a classic tale of the oppressed being thrust into a position of power, and having to navigate racism, prejudice, etc. That's the main theme of the book. For instance in this scene the new emperor, Maia, confronts his abusive guardian, Setheris:
"Thank you, cousin," Maia said, knowing full well that Setheris offered him only the form of respect, that even now, as at Maia's wave he took the other chair, he was incensed with Maia's arrogance, waiting for the correct moment to reassert his control.
Thou wilt not, Maia thought. If I achieve nothing else in all my reign, thou wilt not rule me.
On top of this, there are all sorts of messages about women being useful for more than marriages, masters taking care of their servants, etc etc. All standard far-left, liberal talking points.
I'm wondering if the main difference between my frustration with Ancillary Justice and The Goblin Emperor is just the use of pronouns? I didn't think I had that much of an issue with pronouns/trans ideology separated from the rest of the woke memeplex, but the more I think about it the more it seems that people switching the pronouns they use and forcing others to use their preferred pronouns even if obviously incorrect is the main issue in my mind. Which doesn't seem to make much logical sense - but maybe it's just a disgust reaction.
Anyway, as someone who has identified as a liberal for most of my life, actually hardcore leftist, anti-authoritarian socialist, etc, I'm curious how many other folks are in the same boat. Essentially on board with the project of the left, until the last 5-10 years when trans ideology and pronouns took over the movement. Perhaps there are others who have realized that this is one specific issue they just can't accept for the greater good of the leftist cause.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
4mo ago
I'll go ahead and guess: it will look explicitly and seriously religious.
To me the social history of the last few decades, and indeed the last few centuries, is that of a hollowing out and lack of seriousness in religious practices and traditions. While there have been revivals here and there, the overall trend has been to become more and more secular as modern 'philosophy' and science becomes more powerful. When Descartes completely threw out Aristotelean formal causes, and claimed the Mind was totally separate from the body and physical reality, he unwittingly destroyed the way humans made sense of the world and each other from time immemorial.
At this point I'm convinced that modern philosophy, specifically post-Cartesian philosophy that sees materialism as the ultimate truth and the universe as nothing more than meaningless particles bouncing into each other, cannot coexist with human society. Either we will destroy our societies through increasing social fragmentation, or the transhumanists will get their wish and change the fundamental way human beings interact with each other to paper over the problems of a materialist philosophy. Perhaps both will happen.
Either way, Social Justice has become such a force because it attempts to fill the gap left by the absence of sincere religions, and just like previous 'isms' and secular ideologies, it is doomed to fail because these sorts of religious systems just can't work in a materialist universe. For better or worse, humans need to believe in purpose and meaning beyond dead matter in order to cohere together in large social groups. If we can't have that, well, we will burn it all down.
Personally I think Christianity will rise again to rule the day, at least on a religious level. It has died many times before and come back from the grave - that motif being the mythological bedrock upon which the entire enterprise is founded is no coincidence. The primary, hidden strength of Christ's gospel is the fact that it gives hope in the darkest of times, and promises a renewal and escape from death.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
Perhaps this is a mistake with our current economic regime? I’d argue that due to economic complexity the average citizen should be more aware of who owns the product or service they’re consuming, rather than less.
Hell, I’d vote for a law that forced companies to display their owner if they do get acquired.
Silicon Valley Bank crashed just a day ago, and many folks in the VC/startup world are freaking out. I’ve seen predictions that 50-100 different startups will go bankrupt over the next month. This could cause a contagion effect and lead to worse effects, although I’m skeptical of a major economic collapse as some doomsday prophets have discussed.
Apparently the bank was mostly into mortgage backed securities, which lost a ton of value due to the Fed’s precedented* rate hikes. I don’t know enough about finance to confidently hop on my soapbox here - @BurdensomeCount may have a better idea of what’s going on.
As this collapse mainly affects very left coded super technical folks, I don’t expect many on the right to shed tears. That being said I do think this speaks to a larger issue of growth in the economy as a whole. Tyler Cowen has famously backed the stagnation hypothesis, or the idea that overall production has been slowing down.
Tech startups have recently been the major sector looked to for economic growth, especially with all the AI/LLM hype. This collapse not only will slow the industry but shows a marked incompetence from this growth sector which may cool investment there in the future.
How can we sustain economic growth without the recent massive gains from Silicon Valley technology?
Circling back on the crypto FTX fiasco, Noah Smith has a new piece out theorizing, what happens if crypto just dies? Unfortunately it's paywalled so I couldn't read the whole thing, but I have been wondering this myself. More and more crypto exchanges have been dying off, especially over the last couple of years. FTX seemed to resemble one of the last exchanges embodying the spirit of crypto, and now it's gone.
By spirit of crypto, I mean the original cypherpunk, decentralized idea of a currency that operates outside the bounds of the State. As @aqouta and others have mentioned, big exchanges like Binance are actually more centralized, and if they continue to grow they can easily be incorporated as organs of the existing State apparatus.
As someone who has always been wary of censorship and centralized power, especially in light of the recent escalation in terms of woke social norms being shoved down everyone's throat, this is troubling to me. Both the right and left seem to care less and less about the overreach of the powers that be - in fact folks like Tyler Cowen think that the main difference in the 'New Right' is that they are more trusting of elites.
I'm curious for takes on either side of this issue. If you don't think we have anything to worry about with regards to State power, why is that so? Do you just think that with the rise of the internet/technology States are impotent, or is centralized power a good thing?
If you disagree with the premise above, then how can we work to push back on centralization? Especially with the rise of powerful tools like LLM and the rise of AI, is there any hope for the individual classical liberal ethos to survive the next century?
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1mo ago
Pretense, decorum, expected behavior; these are arbitrary and often worthless. Note often, not worthless for being arbitrary, worthless where they only exist to delineate class. Talk more properly, dress more properly, behave more properly, again I ask whose fucking properness?
To look at this point a bit, these things are absolutely not arbitrary and worthless. Manners, expected behavior, et cetera are highly refined social technologies that teach people how to socialize in expected manners and not have to figure it all out on their own.
To your examples about leaders dropping decorum, there's a difference between an in control man dropping decorum occasionally for emphasis, and destroying decorum entirely as a concept. Also, mass manipulation of public opinion via inauthentic markers of 'realness' is not a good development, in my personal opinion.
Part of the breakdown we're seeing in community and romantic relationships comes from this attitude of destruction towards all social convention, which rap absolutely pushes as you admit. On a higher level, I think many people on the right dislike rap because it is explicitly about tearing down these old Western ideals and virtues, which you seem to see as a good thing if it's clever and sounds cool.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
6mo ago
Or somewhere vs anywhere people.
Yep, I think this hits the nail on the head. One of the defining features of liquid modernity, to me, is a total disregard for place. Physical locations aren't what matters at all. In fact it's seen as uncouth and ridiculous to care about the place you were born and grew up in rather than somewhere else.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
8mo ago
Having charity and kindness being rules here was a mistake.
Not sure what you mean by this. Charity and kindness in debate have been norms that have been useful for far longer than wokeism, even if wokeism is taking those rules to the extreme. Baby and the bathwater, and all that.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
I actually found the link interesting. Skeleton from the Corded Ware Bronze Age culture that was biologically male but buried in female tradition. (Head facing west, surrounded by jugs instead of weapons.)
They also point out rightly in the article that burial practices were incredibly strict and not something ancient cultures would change lightly. There are of course many other explanations and jumping to the idea that it’s trans for fame is a poor call, but it’s not the worst woke science I’ve seen by a long shot.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
1yr ago
The recent Georgist uprising in the rat-sphere seems to be spreading outward, and gathering steam if anything. Lars Doucet, who wrote the original ACX post that blew up, is now releasing a book called Land is a Big Deal which summarizes his writings thus far.
There was also a major takedown of Detroit land assessment practices by a major land parcel data collector, ReGrid that dropped a few days ago. Major takeaways:
- Property tax assessment is widely variable - some houses have *double* the tax burden of identical houses literally across the street.
- Landowners tend to have far better valuations (i.e. pay less taxes) than homeowners, probably because they have more time/incentive to protest valuations.
- Poor taxing and tax foreclosure in Detroit are likely a large part of why the city has fallen on such hard times in recent years.
In addition, some fairly mainstream political candidates such as Chloe Brown who's running for Mayor of Toronto, seem to be gaining steam. Land value tax is a large plank in her platform.
I got interested in land reform through the original series of ACX posts, and frankly I'm surprised how interesting the problem is and how overall neglected the topic seems to be. Even extremely intelligent and well read folks I talk to about it are surprised when they learn that land value is usually just pulled out of thin air - the industry standard is to just take 25% of the purchase price and not give a shit about location or any other factors, which seems bizarre upon a critical review.
I've seen some discussion about Georgism/LVT here, but curious if anyone else has been following this?
Also, what are the arguments against LVT, besides low-effort "taxes are always bad and raising them is evil?" Genuinely curious for well thought out reasons why an LVT would be a bad idea.
Edit: For those new to this idea, a Land Value Tax in it's most basic form simply says we should tax away the value of the land, and only let people who sell land profit off of the 'improvements' they make, such as buildings, restorations, etc. For instance if you bought a piece of land and tried to sell it 1 year later off pure speculation, doing nothing to the land, you would not receive any profit.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
5mo ago
Last week, @ShariaHeap brought up some interesting points on the evolution of religion under the discussion of Bronze Age history that went under-discussed, in my humble opinion.
Specifically they ask:
is it better to think that standards of cooperation that evolved in hunter-gatherer tribes are set early, and understandings around symbols that serve flourishing somewhat timeless, such that most religions have access to them in differing degrees and emphases.
Or, finally, do they each capture something unique, and thus we should seek wisdom through their plurality, essentially operating in a secular mode?
To me, this question can be boiled down to - are all religions equally good, or are some better than others?
Of course we have to get into the 'objective morality versus subjective/post-modern plurality' debate here, which can be it's own morass. But I am curious about how, if you do take religions as potentially better or worse comparatively, how would they stack up?
I've been writing and thinking about an idea that many religions which are popular today are essentially negative when it comes to divine beings - as in, the popular Vitalism that talks about Mother Earth and the interconnectedness of the universe basically deny any explicit 'being' such as God. Typically the ultimate experience of divinity can be revealed in a sort of non-dualistic merging with the universe, or dissolution of the ego.
Buddhism and Hinduism in some strains, as well as Taoism, have heavily influenced this line of mystical thinking.
On the other end you have the more 'positive' versions of religion or mystical experience, that posit the existence of a God or pantheon of gods. While the two can coexist to some degree, like in Hinduism with Brahman etc, they do seem to have very fundamentally different structures at their core.
In his book Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton takes a stab at more negative conceptions of the divine, fiercely stating:
The eternity of the material fatalists, the eternity of the eastern pessimists, the eternity of the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists of to-day is, indeed, very well presented by a serpent eating his tail, a degraded animal who destroys even himself.
In this view, the more Eastern or pessimistic or cyclical religions are fundamentally destructive on a larger scale - they argue that nothing means anything, that all will end the same as it began, reality is ultimately an illusion, et cetera.
By contrast, Christianity and other monotheistic religions push us forward to some sort of Progress, which as we have seen... can have its own issues.
I'm curious if this specific topic has been discussed before, and if other folks here have anything to add?
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
9mo ago
Virology experts as a fourth estate? Or is that closer to fortieth?
It's more like Scientists as a fourth estate. Scientism has rushed in to fill the void of a lack of religion and faith, which is ironic because science is supposed to be above all that. Unfortunately once you turn science into an ideology/religion/cult whatever you want to call it, it loses the vast majority of its explanatory power.
Maybe we'll see a 'fundamentalist' turn in science, where scientists insist we have lost the true path and return to our roots.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
9mo ago
I’d argue the dying out of Covid fanatics was a mix of quite a few factors:
- As you discuss, Omnicron and general Covid dispersion
- Social contagion effects, where being sensitive to Covid became a moral panic due to the easy signaling via mask (the signal lost its value as it became more common)
- Left wing resentment over Trump’s tenure dying out after Biden won
- Massive worldwide economic effects being felt after almost two full years of lockdowns
- Ordinary ‘rank and file’ progressives no longer being able to stomach not seeing their family & friends two years running
- General fatigue with imposed authoritarian demands like testing, restaurants closing etc (many people knew folks who lost their business due to lockdowns)
- Lack of trust in the medical establishment as it became clear they lied and/or massively exaggerated the risks posed by Covid and the effectiveness of masking/vaccines
The list can go on, but there was far more depth to the situation since it affected almost the entire world, quite quickly, and let to massive changes.
I’d imagine the history books will have quite a lot to say about the reaction to Covid, and how it shaped trends moving forward through the 21st century.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
10mo ago
I agree with @Soriek, while the early settlers and people in previous historical communities didn't control everything that happened around them, there were faces they could either love or hate depending on their circumstances. They could go to another person, beg forgiveness or extension, and generally make sense of their world in a more comfortable way.
The modern issue of dealing with "machinations in a distant court" is the exact problem here. Humans have lived with tribes and been comfortable dealing with powerful people in their direct, personal experience for almost all of our history after language, probably even before. Dealing with your life being ruined because of an indistinct rule created by a bureaucrat you've never met and will never meet is much more emotionally difficult than having your life ruined by Steve down the street.
I'm of the opinion that this alienation is why so many modern movements are focused around spite and anger, such as the Alt Right or whatever name they go by now. Our current way of living in the Western world forces us to constantly repress anger, and there's no good outlet for that anger because we don't personally see the people screwing us over.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
6mo ago
My take is that tragedy is an inescapable part of life. Wallowing in tragedy isn't. Stop wallowing buddy.
TheDag
Per Aspera ad Astra
8mo ago
Gotta say, these comments are a beautiful breath of fresh air after all the complaining in the CW thread about bare links and such. I really appreciate these monthly write-ups, they help highlight very directly the excellent writing and discussion that still happens here, despite all the complaining and detractors.
Ut motte vivere in aeternum. Or something.
Circling back around to the topic of space exploration, this article by Palladium on the reasons for exploring space brings up an interesting shift in how geopolitical justifications are made over the last hundred years or so.
The main thrust of the article hypothesizes that there may never be a truly strong economic or political incentive to push space travel. I'm not necessarily convinced this is the case, but I agree that most people that try to justify going to space all those terms are fighting a losing battle. Even if we do stand to gain massively from an economic perspective by pioneering various space initiatives, the timescale for any reasonable returns is in the hundreds of years. Not something that will motivate people to come out to the ballot box anytime soon.
What's really fascinating about the conclusion, however, is that the article points out in excellent pro something I hadn't really grasped before:
Modern governments are often wrongly derided for lacking vision. In fact, they are already committed to multi-trillion-dollar, multi-decade-long visions that require all of society, technology, and world geopolitics to be back-engineered accordingly. The U.S. government, for example, spends half its budget on social welfare programs, especially for the elderly. We take for granted that this is unremarkable, when in fact it is extremely historically unusual and a reflection of our deep commitment to a certain kind of post-industrial society that existentially values comfort and individuality.
While it's debatable whether or not the modern welfare state and social security in western countries really qualifies as a 'vision' of the future, it's absolutely true that the massive social engineering projects we have going on nowadays are far more ambitious and far more expensive than any of the space initiatives that have been proposed so far. This discrepancy is to the tune of multiple orders of magnitude.
The article rightly points out that the only thing that ever motivates people to enact these massive governmental projects are social, religious, or emotional goals. Despite all of our fancy rhetoric, humanity as a whole is nowhere near rational in our large scale decision making. This is a fundamental flaw when it comes to most rationalists or philosophers trying to create policy prescriptions - they lay out a beautiful argument, but failed to give any reasons that will truly motivate people to follow their argument.
I'll let the article conclude itself:
The expansion of human civilization to other stars will not be pioneered by lone adventurers or merry bands of hardy explorers, like we imagine the voyages of Erik the Red or Christopher Columbus. This works for interplanetary space, but not interstellar space, whose travel time will require multiple generations of people to survive a journey, including on the first try. Interstellar travel will need to accommodate not just adventurous young men with nothing to lose, but also women, children, and the elderly. In other words, a whole society. The existence of a society always implies the existence of a government.
More importantly, the sociological challenge of persuading a whole society to migrate into the unknown is very different from that of an explorer’s mission, which needs only the promise of adventure. Like the ancient Israelites, the Pilgrims, or the Mormons, a great migration will only occur when a Promised Land has been credibly found. Indirect evidence of extrasolar planets will never be enough. Whether with colossal space telescopes or ultra-fast nano-probes armed with cameras, we will need to have beautiful images and real maps of alien worlds before human civilization can become interstellar. The purpose of interplanetary expansion is to build the infrastructure and technology to make such scopes and probes feasible. These will be our cathedrals, the legacy which we will leave to our descendants.
With SpaceX's Starship having finished it's static fire tests they will soon be gearing up for the first orbital launch. So far, space travel and industry have avoided getting polarized (although Musk has gotten some frankly ridiculous hit pieces for the whole Ukraine Starlink fiasco), but I don't expect this to continue as it gets cheaper and easier to sent things to and from space.
If you look at the cost per metric ton for space travel right now, it's around $11.3 million/ton. That means that if you want to get a ton of material into space, you're shelling out quite a bit. This limits space endeavours to major governments or multinational corporations for the most part.
According to Musk, Starship will be able to lower the cost to only $20,000 per metric ton to get into space. This is multiple orders of magnitude in terms of cost reduction. Now I'm not super optimistic this number will be hit anytime soon, but if it is, it will enter us into a new era when it comes to space and technology.
My question is - how does this play into the Culture War? Musk has been increasingly right-coded, but it also seems like space and 'moonshots' have long been a darling of the left. On top of this, there's a strong nationalist angle if we can get and maintain an edge on Russia/China in space industry.
I'm curious if anyone else has more fleshed out ideas on this topic, in terms of how space industry will affect the Culture War. Or do most of y'all think this is a non-starter and nobody will care about space in 5-10 years?
More options
Context Copy link